Contents

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Decrease: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 01:34, 24 June 2024

Before posting, first discuss with the protecting admin at their talk page. Post below only if you receive no reply.

• To find out the username of the admin who protected the page click on "history" at the top of the page, then click on "View logs for this page" which is under the title of the page. The protecting admin is the username in blue before the words "protected", "changed protection level" or "pending changes". If there are a number of entries on the log page, you might find it easier to select "Protection log" or "Pending changes log" from the dropdown menu in the blue box.
• Requests to downgrade full protectiontotemplate protection on templates and modules can be directed straight here; you do not need to ask the protecting admin first.
• Requests for removing create protectiononredlinked articles are generally assisted by having a draft version of the intended article prepared beforehand.
• If you want to make spelling corrections or add uncontroversial information to a protected page please add {{Edit fully-protected}} to the article's talk page, along with an explanation of what you want to add to the page. If the talk page is protected please use the section below.

Check the archives if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.

Joseph Kallarangatt

• Joseph Kallarangatt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Reason: The protection is not needed as the disruptive edits by unnecessarily reverting are done by an extended confirmed user. The disruptive edits(reverting) are [1] [2] [3]. These constant and complete revertings of contributions done by multiple users prevents the improvements done to the page. That particular user is alerted in the talk page of the article and hasn't yet provided evidence to his claims. Not blanket page protection but page protection from this particular user is the one needed. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an argument for unprotection, given the BLP issues FrancisSobieski123 (talk · contribs) introduced right before the ECP. If anything, that's an argument to escalate it to full-protection until a discussion has actually run its course. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting contributions of multiple users citing an unreliability of a citation added by one user is injustice. Already the article lacks Neutral point of View(under the section Pastoral ministry and sub section love and narcotics jihad controversy ) that too on a living person, the reverting has undid my multiple contributions too, all with reliable sources that was to address this issue. That particular user's blanket reverting has done no improvement to the page. And that user who reverted my contributions hasn't yet provided evidence to his claim in the article's talk page when asked അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're still making a case for escalating the protection, not downgrading it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you are saying about full protection because the user who is blatantly reverting is an extended confirmed+ user, correct? അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, and because this is a content dispute. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what the solution apart from discussing in the article's talk page. As the particular user hasn't yet replied to substantiate its claims in the talk page. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy concerns with social networking services

• Privacy concerns with social networking services (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Reason: No puedo acceder 38.49.141.10 (talk) 00:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@38.49.141.10. The page is not protected. Or are you referring to something else? -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]